|
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Break the Law? Vote Democrat!
Break the Law? Vote Democrat!
A group of Democrats, led by Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and failed Presidential candidate Senator John Kerry (D-MA) are now pushing for a federal bill to grant all felons the right to vote upon release. Such a measure would be yet another incidence of the massive federal bureaucracy overturning the right of states to decide certain questions for themselves, as guaranteed in the Constitution. (The idea was not to make all states the same, but allow them to have differences so that people could live where and how they chose.) It also shows just how desperate Democrats are getting for votes. Hillary wants the measure put in place in time for the 2006 election, in a move to prevent even more Democratic seats from being lost in the Senate... possibly her own among them, if former NY Mayor Rudy Giuliani can be convinced to run.
Personally, I'm against the idea of letting convicted felons vote. If at all, they should have to go twenty years without so much as a parking ticket before that right is restored to them. Felonies are not like speeding or littering -- not the sort of crime a normally law-abiding citizen can generally commit by accident, or unwittingly. The definition of felony is "One of several grave crimes, such as murder, rape, or burglary." A felon has to make a conscious choice; a decision that the laws and rules simply do not apply to him or her. The price of such a decision should be the loss of any voice in determining those laws... which is part of what voting is all about.
Why are Democrats so concerned with allowing those who choose to abandon the laws of our country to help decide them? Despite their high-sounding concerns about "counting every vote," the Democrats are concerned with only one thing: power. The constant losses at voting booths across the country since 1994 have finally begun to worry them. Democrats have lost control of the House, the Senate, the White House and many governorships. Sometime within the next four years, they face losing control of the Judiciary as well. If they lose just five Senate seats in 2006, they lose even the power to filibuster bills. Now they plan to pander to felons, hoping to regain the power they've lost.
In addition to becoming known as the party of hate, racism, appeasement, abortion and the anti-war party, do the Democrats now "aspire" to become known as the party of lawbreakers?
Posted at Thursday, February 17, 2005 by CavalierX
 | | | Psychic Ferret
February 18, 2005 09:15 AM PST
Of course they want convicted felons to vote – no decent human being would do so otherwise.
Just think about it, pretty soon, you’d have convicted rapists deciding whether or not rape should even be a crime! How’s that for empowering, ladies? I know I’d feel better about my wife, daughter, sister and mother having to live in that world. Of course, with rapists voting on what they are allowed to do, I wouldn’t have to worry about them living for very long.
Then the felons would get to vote on whether or not:
Law-abiding citizens are allowed to arm themselves.
Having sex with children is a crime.
Breaking and entering (and theft) is a crime.
Sounds just spiffy to me! Why do we even need to have laws, police officers and jails for anyway? If you break the law, Democrats don’t want any form of punishment to occur.
Just so that they can ‘take back the White House’.
Here’s a thought instead – why not try finding out what the majority of people want and give it to them.
Oh no, wait – that’s the evil ‘Republican’ way.
And we just couldn’t support that smirking Chimpy BushHitler, could we?
Sorry for backing up the truckload of sarcasm and dumping it on your front yard, but this idea is just too stupid to be believed.
| |
| | | JM
February 18, 2005 09:54 AM PST
I'm just waiting to find out how the Democrats twist this one into being "for the children." After all, that's the way they usually present their radical agenda items. | |
| | | Gallahad
February 18, 2005 10:19 AM PST
Well why not? Just add it to the list of perks. you can get a college degree, run your business or run for public office from prison now. To us who obey the law this is hard to understand. | |
| | | Psychic Ferret
February 18, 2005 01:22 PM PST
Below are two quotes from the article that put the entire measure in perspective:
"Currently an estimated 4.7 million Americans are barred from voting because of their criminal records."
"Kerry, who lost the national contest by 3.3 million votes nationwide . . ."
If the next presidential election goes the way the last one did; allow felons to vote, and bang! Instant popular win for the Democrats. I'd bet real money they will also propose dismantling the Electoral College before the next election to ensure their victory.
These people have all of the subtlety of a nuclear weapon.
And I'm the one that's supposed to be related to weasels. | |
| | | Mannning
February 18, 2005 02:03 PM PST
This idea should be brought up in the House and Senate with maximum fanfare! What a delightful target to paste onto Hillary and Co.! I cannot imagine a Republican Congress passing such a bill, and the citizens will once again be shown the folly of voting Democrat. | |
| | | Name
February 18, 2005 04:49 PM PST
First the Dems court the dead vote. We all know the dead only vote for the democratic candidate :)
Now, the Dems are courting felons. With the dead and felon vote behind you..how can you lose?
Fabulous strategy! What will the Dems think up next?? | |
| | | Mad heron
February 18, 2005 05:59 PM PST
Leave it to the demacrats who will make it safe for crinimals to rob,rape,burglarize,stael kiddnap and do what they want becuase the demacraps want more gun control and want to bankrupt firearm companies with frivlous lawsuits just leave it to the jackasses to leave their manure everywhere | |
| | | E Goods
February 18, 2005 10:23 PM PST
Released felons have done their time and the US Justice system thinks its ok for them to go into society. So once back in society, why should they be treated like crap? Sure, they messed up and did some horrible things but treating them like crap only ensures that they will go back into the life of crime. | |
| | | JM
February 18, 2005 11:13 PM PST
>So once back in society, why
>should they be treated like crap?
No one said "treat them like crap." But if you had read the post, you would already have my answer to why they shouldn't vote: they made a conscious decision that they want to live outside the law, so they are not qualified to determined the laws.
>treating them like crap only
>ensures that they will go back into
>the life of crime.
I think that if you take a survey of why repeat rapists and multiple murderers committed their crimes, "I couldn't vote" would probably be pretty far down on the list. | |
| | | ethan
February 19, 2005 08:54 AM PST
i dont see why they shouldnt be allowed to vote. unless they are the criminally insane. btw not all felonies are heavy duty crimes. here im arizona getting caught with a stem or seed from marijuana can get you a felony. in california thats a 100 dollar misdmeanor. different strokes for different folks. hell we shouldnt let women vote also. | |
| | | JM
February 19, 2005 09:50 AM PST
>i dont see why they shouldnt be
>allowed to vote.
Then read the post again.
>not all felonies are heavy duty
>crimes
You also need to read the definition of felony again.
>getting caught with a stem or
>seed from marijuana can get you
>a felony
Then you'd better not break the law.
>we shouldnt let women vote also
That's very interesting, that you consider being a woman a crime. | |
| | | Ethan
February 19, 2005 09:22 PM PST
wow jm you're an idiot. | |
| | | JM
February 20, 2005 07:48 AM PST
Well, that's an entirely typical Liberal response. | |
| | | Jamie
February 20, 2005 09:43 PM PST
Ex cons already have AUTOMATIC restoration of their voting rights in D.C. and 34 states. In 14 other states they can apply to reinstate their voting rights. In two states — Maine and Vermont — they allow PRISONERS to vote. Isn't that just lovely?
| |
| | | Advocate of Democracy
February 20, 2005 11:20 PM PST
I do not agree that ALL felons should be allowed to vote. I believe there should be a stipulation on this based on the manner of the felony. Otherwise, the law is a good idea. If you look at the good things it proposes like federally mandated simplification of the voting system as well as paper receipts from the vote, the idea is has a lot of potential. If God can forgive so can we. Or are we above him? | |
| | | JM
February 21, 2005 05:57 AM PST
>If God can forgive so can we.
God doesn't get to vote, either. Maybe you missed my point. It has nothing to do with forgiveness. In order to commit murder, rape or robbery, one must make a conscious decision that the law means nothing. I don't want people to whom the law means nothing deciding what those laws should be after merely spending a little time in jail. Why do you?
Oh... you're a Democrat; you must realise that most felons vote Democrat. That's it. Just for votes. | |
| | | JM
February 21, 2005 05:58 AM PST
>In two states — Maine and
>Vermont — they allow
>PRISONERS to vote. Isn't that just
>lovely?
Insanity, that's what it is. | |
| | | Jamie
February 21, 2005 08:32 AM PST
The story that I got the information from was in the L.A. Times at http://tinyurl.com/3n7p9. Its about a study done by "the Sentencing Project, a nonprofit group that studies criminal justice issues." (When you read this article note the use of phrases/words, such as "disenfranchise", "perceived wrongs", "alternative sentences", etc.)
The gist of the story is that these poor ex-felons all need assistance to stay out of jail (its not their fault) and that "restoring voting rights can "help them stay out of trouble".
| |
| | | Jamie
February 21, 2005 08:34 AM PST
But, I like what Todd Gaziano, director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, said about the report's conclusions:
"I don't think you help in a rehabilitation process to give something to someone automatically," he said. "It helps in the rehabilitation process if you have to demonstrate worthiness."
and...
"The reform that is really needed is for more states to actually require some demonstration that the felon is deserving to join the body politic again," he said. "Do we trust felons to automatically have guns back when they serve their time?"
| |
| | | JM
February 21, 2005 09:12 AM PST
Good point; in the long run, a vote can be far more dangerous than a gun. | |
| | | Frank Lynch
February 21, 2005 09:51 AM PST
So if the idea of State's Rights was really so that people could move to where they liked the laws, why haven't you moved to a state where felons can't vote? You live in Pennsylvania, where they can. | |
| | | JM
February 21, 2005 10:36 AM PST
There are other factors in my decision to live here, of course. What a silly question. | |
| | | Frank Lynch
February 21, 2005 10:40 AM PST
JM, are you aware that the Democrat skew of felons is one of the primary reasons Republicans are expressly against this liberalization of the law? Just to prevent more people from voting Democrat; I read a quotation in the Washington Post from some Republican elections official in a southern state (LA? AL?), not sure which. | |
| | | Frank Lynch
February 21, 2005 11:01 AM PST
I looked it up: it was actually Alabama Republican Party Chairman Marty Connors: "As frank as I can be," he said, "we're opposed to [restoring voting rights] because felons don't tend to vote Republican."
See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9785-2004Aug17.html | |
| | | JM
February 21, 2005 11:02 AM PST
Again, those who decide to live outside the law should not get to vote on what those laws are. Why do I have to repeat myself? | |
| | | Political Pulit
February 21, 2005 01:14 PM PST
You are making a lot of assumptions here, but I will address a couple for you:
First, you assume that felons tend to vote Democrat. Like the military, prisons are a socialist society. Most convicts leave prison as Conservative because they've seen what communism is all about.
Do you honestly think that by allowing ex-felons to vote that they could possibly effect the legalization of rape, murder, and burglary? That would have to mean that the current majority of voters would choose to vote the same.
I have a 1969 felony conviction for possession of one marijuana cigarette. I served five years for that "crime" and was paroled for the remainder of my twenty year sentence. I am not "allowed" to vote, even though I have never committed so much as a traffic infraction since.
Two years ago, I won a federal court decision opting me out of paying state and federal taxes because I do not have a say in how those taxes are collected or distributed. Since then, many other ex-felons have followed suit and have won similar decisions.
There are currently fifteen million current or ex-felons in the United States. Ten million have been out of the court/prison/post supervision stage for over ten years.
The final assumption is that to commit a felony takes a "conscience effort" to commit. The average adult, by the time they are thirty has committed at least ten crimes that could result in a felony conviction. | |
| | | JM
February 21, 2005 01:35 PM PST
>you assume that felons tend to
>vote Democrat
I don't care how they vote, although polls do show that they vote Democrat.
>Do you honestly think that by >allowing ex-felons to vote that
>they could possibly effect the
>legalization of rape, murder, and
>burglary?
Political races often turn on mere hundreds of votes.
>I am not "allowed" to vote, even
>though I have never committed
>so much as a traffic infraction
>since.
As I said in the article -- and why must I continue to repeat myself? -- I can see a case for reinstatement after 20 years without even a parking ticket.
>The final assumption is that to
>commit a felony takes
>a "conscience effort" to commit.
Someone crazy-glued that joint to your fingers while you slept, did they? You made a conscious effort to acquire it, did you not? | |
| | | Paladin
February 21, 2005 04:45 PM PST
JM love the post and i would love to agree with it. EXCEPT if we didn't allow criminals to vote that means we would have to elect almost a whole new governing body. Because as we all know THEY'RE the biggest and worset criminals of all. Just wanted to add my gas to the fire. Enjoy : ) | |
| | | Mad heron
March 9, 2005 02:46 PM PST
Just like the demacrats to want fellons to vote so they can all get parole and can rob,rape,murder,and pillage at will and becuase their victims will be unarmed and they will be like in england all becuase these liberal demacrats want more votes for their corupt party i say we dont need the demacratic party if they want this SCREW THE DONKEY | |
| | | Norm
March 25, 2005 12:45 AM PST
JM, you can very easily become a felon yourself, so watch this black-and-white opinion you seem to have of your fellow Americans. It may come back to bite you in the butt. We are so over-regulated these days and people have such a fetish with "federalizing" all of our laws that one in 143 Americans are either in prison or on parole. In fact, it is almost harder to stay out of prison than to go in, and prisons are overflowing faster than they can build new ones. Anything you do can be perceived by some overzealous agent or prosecutor as a "conspiracy" or an attempt to circumvent the law, whether you think you are in the right or not, and when they get you in their sights, they will not give up until you are utterly destroyed. Even having the wrong person's phone number in your wallet can get you involved in a "conspiracy." Yes, I am a convicted felon in a simple, one-count "possession" crime. I have been out on recognizance for over a year awaiting self-surrender next month. I also have always voted Republican in every election since 1984, and last year was the last time I may ever vote again. I think after I do my time and complete my probation period (isn't "probation" so you can prove you are worthy of public trust again?) I should be allowed to vote and own a firearm again. If you commit a violent crime that harms someone or are convicted of treason, I say no to either. However, if I am to be trusted to roam free in society, I should have my rights restored. You have to observe my other rights, so why should just those two be denied? Why should a guy who gets four years for illegally dumping tires never be allowed to vote or own a gun? How about a guy who grows his own pot in the attic? I bet if some fed went through ole JM's house, he could find something to make a case on. Maybe you have too much paint stored un an unsafe manner or have been dumping motor oil out back. The Bible says, "There is none without sin. No, not one." I am sure my comments will illicite some snide response, but it's guys like JM who end up on the sharp end of the stick sooner or later, and all that crying about how law-and-order you are won't mean doodie to the GI prosecutor. | |
| | | JM
March 25, 2005 02:46 AM PST
>JM, you can very easily become a
>felon yourself
Hardly. That would entail my choosing to break the law. If I choose to commit murder, rape or robbery, you may be certain that I will consider voting the least of my worries.
>Yes, I am a convicted felon in a
>simple, one-count "possession"
>crime.
You knew drugs were illegal, right? You made a choice.
>last year was the last time I may
>ever vote again
I have said that non-violent felons should be eligible to regain their voting rights after a period of time.
>I bet if some fed went through ole
>JM's house, he could find
>something to make a case on.
I'm in trouble if owning too many books is a felony. Otherwise, no problem.
>The Bible says, "There is none
>without sin. No, not one."
But this is about felons, not sinners.
>it's guys like JM who end up on
>the sharp end of the stick sooner
>or later
When I decide to rape, murder or rob someone, I'll let you know. | |
| | | Norm
March 25, 2005 11:16 PM PST
>If I choose to commit murder, rape or robbery, you may be certain that I will consider voting the least of my worries.
You seem to be fixated on murder, rape, and robbery. Note that these are all crimes of violence, which would disqualify anyone of voting even among most those who feel that ex-felons should have the right to vote. In fact, most felons are non-violent, at least those in federal prison. There is no reason why a white-collar criminal should not be allowed to vote after full service of sentence.
>You knew drugs were illegal, right? You made a choice.
My crime did not involve drugs. By the way, have you never heard of addictive and compulsive behavior? Many people who possess drugs or other illegal items that politicians have decided are "bad" are in fact addicts and therefore suffer from a mental illness. Addictions usually arise from some past emotional trauma. They need treatment, not confinement for years on end. Possessing something in your own home for personal use should not send you to prison, no matter what it is, so long as you do no harm to anyone else.
>But this is about felons, not sinners.
"He who knows right and does it not, to him it is sin." It is about making poor choices (you keep talking about choice yourself) and paying for them. Why does one have to pay for the same offense over and over? Why does a felon who has "paid his debt to society" not accepted back into society and be allowed the hope of total reformation? The very reason why so many ex-felons return to prison is because after they have tried to make good on what they did wrong they can't get jobs, they have to register for this or that, they can't vote, they can't move, they can't live at home with their families, they can't get school loans, or whatever our shepards in D.C. have decided to hang around their necks. Why don't we just deport all the felons to some island and let them live away from all you good people. Oh, wait- the British did that a long time ago and that's how we got the Untied States and Australia.
| |
| | | JM
March 26, 2005 12:49 AM PST
>You seem to be fixated on
>murder, rape, and robbery. Note
>that these are all crimes of
>violence
Yes, that was my point.
>suffer from a mental illness
We should be happier about the mentally ill voting?
>past emotional trauma. They need
>treatment, not confinement
Right, it's Not Their Fault. I seem to have heard that before.
>Possessing something in your own
>home for personal use should not
>send you to prison,
Unless it's illegal, and then it should -- because that's the law. Your argument is "I don't agree with the law, so it shouldn't be a law."
>Why does a felon who has "paid
>his debt to society" not accepted
>back into society
Answered in the post.
>The very reason why so many ex-
>felons return to prison is because
>after they have tried to make
>good on what they did wrong they
>can't get jobs
All society's fault, right?
>Why don't we just deport all the
>felons to some island
Not the argument at hand. Show me where I advocated the Escape from New York solution. | |
| | | Name
September 1, 2005 07:19 PM PDT
In Arizona they allow fellons not
convicted of gun violence to vote
and own guns after probation.
Bye the way, Bush carried Az.
JMCCUBBIN@sw.rr.com | |
|
|
